By SCM International Desk I Saturday, August 29, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. / ABUJA — President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has filed a fresh legal challenge in a United States Federal Court to prevent American law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), from releasing sensitive records linked to historical allegations of drug trafficking.
The legal intervention was revealed in a 16-page court document submitted on Friday, August 28, 2026, before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case stems from a high-profile Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit initiated by American transparency advocate and researcher Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking full access to law enforcement files concerning the Nigerian leader.
Greenspan’s FOIA requests seek the FBI’s entire investigative repository on Tinubu, including FBI Form 302 interview records compiled during a federal probe spanning 1992 to 1993.
The records are connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Chicago, Illinois, where approximately $460,000 in bank accounts linked to Tinubu was forfeited to the U.S. government following an investigation into suspected narcotics proceeds.
President Tinubu has consistently denied any criminal wrongdoing, emphasizing that he was never charged with or convicted of a drug-related offense in the United States or anywhere else, and that the 1993 proceeding was purely a civil settlement.
Privacy Rights and Legal Arguments
In the latest court filing shared by his legal team—comprising U.S. attorneys Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson, and Nigerian counsel Oluwole O. Afolabi—President Tinubu urged the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and uphold the redactions and withholdings made by federal agencies.
Tinubu’s lawyers contended that the partial disclosure of information during the 1993 civil forfeiture case does not strip an individual of their right to personal privacy regarding non-public investigative materials.
”The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are ‘scattered’ disclosures of information from that same file,” the legal team stated in the filing, invoking Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice.
”Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff… If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s name on them,” the document read in part.
Tinubu’s defense specifically invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the U.S. Privacy Act, which protect law-enforcement records from public disclosure if releasing them would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The FOIA lawsuit, filed by Greenspan between 2022 and 2023, has lingered in the U.S. court system for over three years. Initially, the FBI and DEA relied on a “Glomar response”—a legal position where an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of records.
However, Judge Howell previously rejected the Glomar defense, ruling that because the agencies had already acknowledged investigations linked to Tinubu, broad non-disclosure was “neither logical nor plausible”.
Following that ruling, federal agencies were ordered to process non-exempt documents for release. However, momentum stalled after Tinubu formally intervened in the suit to assert his privacy rights.
Recently, the FBI requested permission to submit confidential declarations ex parte and in camera (privately to the judge without public disclosure).
The bureau argued that publicly explaining its basis for withholding certain records could expose confidential law-enforcement methods, compromise intelligence operations, or endanger individuals.
The matter was prominent during the legal challenges that followed the 2023 presidential election, where opposition parties sought to use the 1993 civil forfeiture to disqualify Tinubu.
However, both the Presidential Election Petition Court and the Nigerian Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming his election victory.
The Presidency has maintained that the claims are historical, politically motivated, and contain no evidence of criminal indictment.
Judge Howell is expected to review the submissions from President Tinubu, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI before deciding whether to order the release of redacted documents or allow the government’s withholdings to stand.
